Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's not a single positive thing about it.

It has the same problem as the current gak mission design. They both favor specific army lists and reward specific styles of game play. Together they create an environment where every game is largely exactly the same each and every time. It is why there is no diversity of winning factions across events, no diversity of units, no diversity of army lists within a faction. It is why we see the same faction with the same army list win over and over and over.

The only reason this unimaginative terrain layout exists is to remove a random / uncontrollable aspect to pander to and make the game more predictable for competitive players.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward

 oni wrote:
Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward

oni, that's an unfair comparison - Matt Ward has done nothing to deserve that...

 oni wrote:
Together they create an environment where every game is largely exactly the same each and every time.

Not even true in the slightest.

It is why there is no diversity of winning factions across events, no diversity of units, no diversity of army lists within a faction. It is why we see the same faction with the same army list win over and over and over.

This has absolutely nothing to do with terrain. Lists are absolutely not the same at all. There is no net listing in 9th.

Take 3 top Tau from CAGBASH





Even with Custodes you have bike spam lists, dread lists, and pallas/calidus lists.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward

Brandt has absolutely nothing to do with GW unbalancing the books or your unfamiliarity with the game and armies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I "feel" that it shows that gw knows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.

They do a good job, really. The use, or lack thereof, of barricades and other such terrain isn't mutually exclusive. Those things work fine and I think the avoidance is more, because they wanted something to help vehicles. Barricades create a problem for larger footprints, which can move over, but not stand on that terrain and dense is the one thing that vehicles can pick up, so that was basically the go to.

I don't think the problem is terrain at all. It's the power of ooLOS shooting and decidedly over tuned armies. It looks more and more likely that Custodes points were set based on Tau, Eldar, and perhaps new Nids.

No, they don't, really.

Yes, barricades can slow down, or even flat out stop big/slow/bracketed vehicles, but they also slow down infantry, and at best give them LIGHT COVER, so the vehicle can at least shoot at them. Meanwhile, those big ruin walls flat out stop any vehicles without FLY, and since they're all OBSCURRING + BREACHABLE, infantry get full protection from shooting, while being able to "Kool-aid Man" right through them at no cost to their movement.

And vehicles only benefiting from DENSE is one of the many problems with the current terrain rules. But even then, it's not much help if all of the DENSE cover is on the outer edges of the board, unless you only intend to use your vehicles as static gun inplacements. There needs to be a greater mix of terrain types spread throughout the board to offer advantages/disadvantages to more unit types. If it has to be symmetrical for "competitive fairness", fine. But you shouldn't be over-relying on a couple of types, and if you have to, then that means that the others aren't working well enough.

Agreed on ignore LOS shooting and some armies being over tuned. It's bizarre that whoever wrote the Tyranids codex figured out how ooLOS shooting should work, but it didn't carry over into Tau and other armies.

Yea I get you. I'd like to see dense occasionally interspersed rather than cast out to the edges. The concern there is a couple pieces could dictate the whole flow of the game and cripple Orks.

I think the best way to solve that problem though is to just make vehicles without invulnerables or damage mitigation better.

I don't really know how they'd go about making vehicles without invuls and damage mitigation better besides just making them cheaper, and if they swing too hard in that direction we could end up with parking lots again. I'd just add that TITANIC units ignore anything less 3" for movement houserule you mentioned above and allow "normal" vehicles to benefit from LIGHT COVER, at least from area terrain.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I don't really know how they'd go about making vehicles without invuls and damage mitigation better besides just making them cheaper, and if they swing too hard in that direction we could end up with parking lots again. I'd just add that TITANIC units ignore anything less 3" for movement houserule you mentioned above and allow "normal" vehicles to benefit from LIGHT COVER, at least from area terrain.

higher toughness, more wounds, 2+ save on any heavy vehicle, 3+ on light vehicles.

Make vehicles tanky

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I don't really know how they'd go about making vehicles without invuls and damage mitigation better besides just making them cheaper, and if they swing too hard in that direction we could end up with parking lots again. I'd just add that TITANIC units ignore anything less 3" for movement houserule you mentioned above and allow "normal" vehicles to benefit from LIGHT COVER, at least from area terrain.

higher toughness, more wounds, 2+ save on any heavy vehicle, 3+ on light vehicles.

Make vehicles tanky

I meant without rewriting all of the current vehicle datasheets. Right now the only vehicles that are waiting on 9th edition rules are the Venom Crawler, KLOS, and everything in the Guard Codex. Oh, and Knights (ugh).

I could vaguely understand it from the "nooo... you can't play 40k competitively" crowd - but the idea you'd turn up to tournaments and terrain would be random doesn't strike me as enjoyable at all.

I don't know though whether the terrain explicitly causes an exchange meta. I think 40k has sort of always had that at the top. The issue I think is that damage is so high, you get so reliable and consistent exchanges. So if you pushed your whole army forward to try at target saturation, opponents just go "thanks, I'll kill your whole army". I think at BS3 with inevitable rerolls dense just isn't a consistent enough swing to matter.

I'd be tempted to say less terrain should have breachable - but I think it would represent quite a big change and it would further exaggerate the advantages of fly. But it might be sensible if you could sort out the above.

Tyel wrote:
So if you pushed your whole army forward to try at target saturation, opponents just go "thanks, I'll kill your whole army".

This is a thing I feel people struggle with - you absolutely don't need to engage your full army at every possible opportunity. It's also why ooLOS is a problem and your interaction Tau becomes just whether or not you can position to avoid extra AP on the good units.

I think the way they handle line of sight needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, and that the terrain rules keep having problems because they are inadequate for fixing a fundamentally broken LoS mechanic.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the way they handle line of sight needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, and that the terrain rules keep having problems because they are inadequate for fixing a fundamentally broken LoS mechanic.

"If any weapon shoots a target it does not see, it can only hit on unmodified 6's"

You should not be able to kill that which you cannot see (indirect fire notwithstanding).

"bUt RhInO sNiPiNg!!!1"

Yes. Position and manoeuvre should be important. Protect your guys.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You should not be able to kill that which you cannot see (indirect fire notwithstanding).

"bUt RhInO sNiPiNg!!!1"

Yes. Position and manoeuvre should be important. Protect your guys.

Yea, but in the context of rhino sniping there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You should not be able to kill that which you cannot see (indirect fire notwithstanding).

"bUt RhInO sNiPiNg!!!1"

Yes. Position and manoeuvre should be important. Protect your guys.

Yea, but in the context of rhino sniping there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop it.

But wait! Don't I keep hearing that vehicles are trash in this edition & too easy to remove?
Problem: Rhino sniping
Solution: Make that Rhino go away.

Well, presumably the actions would all happen on their turn - move rhino, blow away any other visible units, and go to town.

Vehicles aren't trash so much as too many of them are a liability. Sometimes I can't roll 5s to save me life so mentally it's the same as not having an invulnerable.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of indirect fire in 9th edition, other than the somewhat unintuitive interaction with dense cover.

Dense cover is a bit clunky in action. It is odd how much better a 10 ton tank (toe in a single mm of its base) is at hiding in forests than infantry (need all the infantry in or behind the forest).

The massive flaw with regard to indirect fire is as usual the GW points setting team (probably a team of 1 intern) and the power creep/undercosting they are doing.

9th edition codexes:
Space Marine indirect - Fine.
Death Guard indirect - Fine.
Sisters indirect - Fine.
Orks indirect - Badly undercosted initially and 'fixed' amateurishly.
Tau indirect - Insanely undercosted.
Eldar indirect - Somewhere between badly undercosted and insanely undercosted.
Tyranid indirect - Taking steps in the right direction.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the way they handle line of sight needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, and that the terrain rules keep having problems because they are inadequate for fixing a fundamentally broken LoS mechanic.

All they really need to do is make height classifications or change LoS from true to base-to-base. It's not a complex fix.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Horrific.
Blasphemous.
Anti-fun.
Anti-creativity.
Rage-inducing.

I could go on.

Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.


Also seconded on fixed tables.
If lethality is such a problem , maybee tone it down? Or here another intersting thought, cutting down the size of the boards and expanding the threat range of a WHOLE LOT OF ARMIES, was a stupid idea? NVM that the terrain keywords and associated rules are just.... meh, further why not hybridise the old system of a cover throw with the new system of +1 SV?
If your armore = better than cover save, then +1 if your armor worse than cover save then cover save. (4+ standard once again) make manouvre and seizeing cover actually matter...

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Horrific.
Blasphemous.
Anti-fun.
Anti-creativity.
Rage-inducing.

I could go on.

Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.

But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Horrific.
Blasphemous.
Anti-fun.
Anti-creativity.
Rage-inducing.

I could go on.

Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.

But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!

I do think we have and can fairly state that we already had codexcreep, respectively a severe case of it, ever since drukhari.
I also think that GW in true GW fashion is quite likely to produce another lashwhip dp obliterator debacle that makes playing regular CSM annoying as hell once again.

Who are you trying to attack now, because you seem to be going for a scattershot approach that's neither amusing nor entertaining?

I personally despise standard terrain layouts, they ruin the immersion of the game (yes this is a game, not a sport), remove the innovation and tactics that adapting your play to different battlefields brings and its just boring and predictable to play on the same layout every time.

That said..... I fully understand why larger tournaments use standard layouts, when you are at the stage of needing hundreds of tables worth of terrain then a standard layout is really the only way to go - personally I'd still like to see a few different layout types to mix it up. These could cover different amounts of terrain but also different varieties - urban, rural, wasteland - all offer different terrain types and rules.

The bigger issue is with game rules - I actually like the base terrain rules and their keyword system, they work well in principle but they just don't survive contact with the absurdity that is the newer codexs that have been coming out and jumping the shark by about 20M.

The smaller table size was something I didn't like but again could understand but they have continually exasperated the table size issue by constantly increasing units movement speed, adding additional abilities to move more and ignore penalties of movement and on top of that they have been wholesale increasing weapons ranges on units that are moving faster on a smaller table!!!!!! For feths sake what did they expect to happen!!

For me all these discussions boil down to the same problem, the base rules of 9th are actually pretty good or even very good - but the codex design, layering of mass amounts of additional rules, mountains of strats and the codex creep (more like leap!) are completely ruining the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Horrific.
Blasphemous.
Anti-fun.
Anti-creativity.
Rage-inducing.

I could go on.

Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.

But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!

I do think we have and can fairly state that we already had codexcreep, respectively a severe case of it, ever since drukhari.
I also think that GW in true GW fashion is quite likely to produce another lashwhip dp obliterator debacle that makes playing regular CSM annoying as hell once again.

It's not a consistent creep I wouldn't say, GSC aren't making waves, sisters and DG both made some ok results but were at best the bridesmaid rather than the bride, Tsons barely made a dent. Essentially, GK & Orks were a flash in the pan, Drukhari and AM were OP and everyone else was just "ok". If it was consistent codex creep it would be every new book that came out, but it isn't. The "good" books are getting better, the "bad" books are probably still very competitive into the rest of the crowd.

If that was aimed at my HBMC, the same bunch that insist that GW intentionally shifts rules to sell new stuff and that every book is aimed to catch in the WAAC tournament hopper stereotype because they have to have the new hotness. Those same ones who would claim any new kit is obviously OP to sell etc.

 WisdomLS wrote:

That said..... I fully understand why larger tournaments use standard layouts, when you are at the stage of needing hundreds of tables worth of terrain then a standard layout is really the only way to go - personally I'd still like to see a few different layout types to mix it up. These could cover different amounts of terrain but also different varieties - urban, rural, wasteland - all offer different terrain types and rules.

I agree with this. I didn't talk about this part in my post on the first page but I am not entirely against using standard load outs for tournaments. Having 3 load outs instead of 2 as well as utilizing the other terrain types on more balanced boards would make the games a little more interesting IMHO. Things like Dense terrain are a little wonky with units and vehicles but its the only way to get a -1 to hit on the table right now. I try to look at terrain as what bonuses they are granting on the table and right now ruins grant a nice +1 Armour, Defensible, and Obscure but its not the only bonuses that exist in 9th, just the only ones that exist in tournaments.

If that is how they are playtesting the game, it kind of sheds a light as to why everything is getting extra AP, as they are play testing all the units with +1 armour that they probably shouldn't have.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Horrific.
Blasphemous.
Anti-fun.
Anti-creativity.
Rage-inducing.

I could go on.

Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.

But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!

I do think we have and can fairly state that we already had codexcreep, respectively a severe case of it, ever since drukhari.
I also think that GW in true GW fashion is quite likely to produce another lashwhip dp obliterator debacle that makes playing regular CSM annoying as hell once again.

It's not a consistent creep I wouldn't say, GSC aren't making waves, sisters and DG both made some ok results but were at best the bridesmaid rather than the bride, Tsons barely made a dent. Essentially, GK & Orks were a flash in the pan, Drukhari and AM were OP and everyone else was just "ok". If it was consistent codex creep it would be every new book that came out, but it isn't. The "good" books are getting better, the "bad" books are probably still very competitive into the rest of the crowd.

If that was aimed at my HBMC, the same bunch that insist that GW intentionally shifts rules to sell new stuff and that every book is aimed to catch in the WAAC tournament hopper stereotype because they have to have the new hotness. Those same ones who would claim any new kit is obviously OP to sell etc.

to be fair on the ork front it was GW acting quickly on the codex. for some reason they are super fast to nerf the NPC factions, I imagine if anything is too good in the Tyranid faction they will do the same. Orks had the freebootas buggy and plane list that was the only list making top tables. GW response within 3 weeks of codex release was to limit every faction to 2 planes, only allow only 1 unit of each buggy type so they have to be taken in clunky squadrons or just one of each type there were a few other nerfs in there to the book as a whole in there too. To be fair mission accomplished they are right in the middle of the pack now, I just wish GW was equal in speed for dealing with overpowered stuff from other books. Eldar and Harlies really cannot believe how good that book is looking and the weekend tournament results are showing. If they are treated equal both would get serious nerfs soon, but they are not an NPC faction so i forsee them ruling the roost for the next 6 months with only minor nerfs.

I think Ork timelines can be exaggerated because of the weird/greedy approach to releasing the Codex. So if you bought the Snagga box you got the book about 6~ weeks before it was individually released in early September. You then had a further 8~ weeks before the November FAQ undermined Speedwaaagh.

Which then produces rather weird results because in some places you had tournaments with the book being valid for about 3 months - and others for barely 1.

Tyel wrote:
I could vaguely understand it from the "nooo... you can't play 40k competitively" crowd - but the idea you'd turn up to tournaments and terrain would be random doesn't strike me as enjoyable at all.

That's literally how terrain was handled for tournaments for decades until ITC blandified things in 8th. The idea of set, non-random terrain is insanely new.

You'd get some amazing tables before this boring cookie cutter suburbification of battle fields, too.

Real terrain has curves!

Tyel wrote:
I think Ork timelines can be exaggerated because of the weird/greedy approach to releasing the Codex. So if you bought the Snagga box you got the book about 6~ weeks before it was individually released in early September. You then had a further 8~ weeks before the November FAQ undermined Speedwaaagh.

Which then produces rather weird results because in some places you had tournaments with the book being valid for about 3 months - and others for barely 1.

most tournaments do not allow a new codex if it is limited release, I am sure there were some out there that did as its up to the event organizer but for the most part it was just about a month of play pre nerf. Again it acoomplished making the strongest ork build (and only the one competitive build holding up the codex) a middle of the road army. The complaint other than the rest of the book needing a look is that its was such a quick response to beat it back after so long of dark eldar and admech supremacy. meanwhile we have Custodes needing some nerfs but can't have an imperium army see quick nerfs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Real terrain has curves!

Gorgeous. Is that your stuff?

 G00fySmiley wrote:
The complaint other than the rest of the book needing a look is that its was such a quick response to beat it back after so long of dark eldar and admech supremacy. meanwhile we have Custodes needing some nerfs but can't have an imperium army see quick nerfs.

GK got nerfed in 3 months, comparing the DE who stayed the same for almost a year, and then nerfs to other stuff made them awesome again. Harlis were great for months in early 9th ed, and now they are great again. On the other hand a ton of marines have been bad since the 8th post 2.0 nerfs and recived no fixs. GK waited more then half of 9th to get +1W. IG have been bad since soup died, and are slotted in for the last 2-3 books of the 9th ed. That is possible entire edition of being bad.